Gerry Sutcliffe: The normal procedures are being followed in terms of the appointment of Goldman Sachs. It acts on the basis of giving the Government the widest range of options. I am aware of a large number of interests in the sale of the Tote. Obviously, we have to get the best value for the taxpayer and make sure that we honour our commitment to give 50 per cent. of the proceedings to racing.

Mark Harper: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for her reply, particularly her reference to the last Mayor's ability to keep the Olympic budget down. As she will know very well, he recently said:
	"I decided to bid for the Olympics... because... it was the only way of getting any government... to invest billions of pounds in rebuilding the East End".
	When he was told that that made it sound like a con trick, he said "Literally, absolutely!" Given that it was a con trick, is the Minister pleased that the new Mayor of London, with whom she will co-chair the board, is a much more serious politician, who will be an asset to London and to the Olympics?

Alistair Carmichael: What is her most recent estimate of the budget for the 2012 Olympic Games.  [Official Report, 2 June 2008, Vol. 477, c. 8MC.]

Tessa Jowell: In March 2007, I announced a funding package of £9.325 billion for the Olympics Games. That has not changed, and I confirmed to the House earlier this year that the budget for the Olympic Delivery Authority remained the same, with £2 billion of contingency funds untouched. In January this year, we published the scope of what would be delivered from the funding package.

Iris Robinson: Can the Minister say what proportion of the budget is earmarked for Northern Ireland?  [Official Report, 2 June 2008, Vol. 477, c. 8MC.]

Ian Taylor: As the Minister who in 1997 authorised the funding of the research that led to the cloning of Dolly the sheep and, almost the same day that that was announced, set up the human genetics advisory board, may I say to the Secretary of State that what he is proposing in this Bill on stem cell research is absolutely right? The fact that Professor Wilmut, who was involved in the Roslin Institute at the time of Dolly the sheep, is now saying we can move on to adopt stem cell research does not mean that he or someone else does not need to continue to conduct embryo research so that we can look for a better quality of life for people suffering from terrible wasting diseases.

Andrew Lansley: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 has been a success. The first legislation of its kind in the world, it led to a framework for the development of assisted reproduction and embryo research that has been a positive example for policy making worldwide. I should like to join the Secretary of State in applauding the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and colleagues who took that legislation through and the manner in which they did so.
	The legislation was rooted in the work of the Warnock committee and its report. It was always clear that the legislation is not intended simply to facilitate research. Technically, it was not needed for that, and research was able to proceed. The issue was that that research required to be established within an ethical framework so that science is bounded, some forms of research are prohibited, and all research on human embryos requires a licence. That was encapsulated in the Warnock committee's view:
	"The embryo of the human species ought to have a special status and no-one should undertake research on human embryos the purpose of which could be achieved by the use of animals or in some other way. The status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation."
	It is a matter of regret to me that the Government appear to have lost that sense of the intention of legislation. In the Queen's Speech, they said that its purpose would be
	"to ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of medical research".
	However, the legislation is not just about reflecting scientific progress. The fact that scientists can do something does not mean that they should. Ethical boundaries do not shift in a mechanistic way to reflect the utility of new research techniques. When we scrutinise the Bill, I urge the House to have in mind not just the ease with which research may be conducted as a consequence, but always to consider the ethical implications.
	The 1990 Act had ethical issues at its heart. That is why our predecessors in 1990 conducted the legislation on free vote. It is why, at the end of 2006, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I said that Conservative Members would have a free vote throughout the passage of the Bill. It is why the Government could and should have done exactly the same. Unfortunately, back in 2006 the Government imposed a whip on regulations relating to the anonymity of sperm and egg donation, and they imposed a whip on Labour peers during the passage of this Bill. It has only been as they have relented under pressure from their own Members, from us and from the media that they have consented to a partial free vote on certain aspects of the Bill. I entirely share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that if Members have ethical considerations that, in their view, prevail over any other considerations in a Bill, they should be in a position to exercise their conscience and judgment, including on Third Reading.
	For my part, therefore, what I will say reflects my personal view, and I do not intend that it should bind any of my colleagues. None the less, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and I will sometimes wish to raise issues and table amendments to protect the interests of the House now and the interests of our constituents for the future.
	Speaking for myself, I support Second Reading of the Bill. Even those who wish to amend the Bill at subsequent stages must recognise that the legislation needs to be updated. The example I would give, which will be familiar to many hon. Members, is that of the decisions that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority made in January concerning two projects involving the use of animal eggs from which the nucleus had been removed. Despite the fact that the 1990 Act prohibits the mixing of animal and human gametes, other than to test the fertility of sperm, the authority regarded the embryo created as human and that, as such, it could license research. The HFEA's decisions and interpretation of the 1990 Act suggest that substantial research using hybrid embryos would continue even if there were no legislation, so the Bill is necessary to provide clarity and to update the law. That does not mean, however, that the Bill should go forward unamended.

Andrew Lansley: I am aware that there are scientists who rightly want greater clarity in the law, for an entirely understandable reason that reinforces the importance of the legislation and its success so far: scientists feel far more confident about the nature of what they are doing, and of public support for it, when Parliament has provided an ethical and legal framework. That was true in 1990, it has remained true and it is important for us to provide that assurance now. It is partly for that reason that my colleagues and I will propose a number of amendments. First, we will do so to secure improvements to the future scrutiny of regulations made under the legislation; secondly, to maintain the ethical values reflected in the 1990 Act, which we believe are unnecessarily being dispensed with by the Bill; and, thirdly, to ensure that licensing by the HFEA carries necessary safeguards.
	I turn to the major issues in the Bill, again reiterating that I do so on the basis of my personal views, rather than the view of the official Opposition as a whole. I turn first to the clauses on human admixed embryos, as they are described. I note that the Government's expert advisory group reported in July 2000
	"that the use of eggs from a non-human species to carry a human cell nucleus was not a realistic or desirable solution to the possible lack of human eggs for research or subsequent treatment."
	We can say that it is now realistic, but the question is whether it is desirable. In January 2007, the Department of Health gave evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Government said that
	"we have not seen so far a firm consensus within the scientific community...about precisely which human-animal creations should be allowed, any immediate imperative for doing so, or the availability and interpretation of supporting evidence."
	As recently as last year, therefore, the Government's intention was to prohibit human-animal embryos while creating an order-making power by which Parliament could subsequently sanction such research under licence should a consensus emerge.
	In February 2007, just one month later, the Government's position had changed, and they proposed to legislate to permit such hybrid embryo research. When we debate the changes in more detail, the Government will need to explain their change of mind. I accept that there is a need to pursue different models by which stem cells can be created or reprogrammed to provide potential therapeutic benefit. Although research on reprogramming adult stem cells is encouraging, it would be foolhardy to block embryonic stem cell research and it is increasingly evident that the availability of human eggs for research purposes will be a serious constraint on the conduct of such experiments.

David Burrowes: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is important when considering animal-human hybrid research to demonstrate that it is necessary and that all other avenues and alternatives—adult stem cell research, induced pluripotent stem cells, umbilical cord research—have been considered? Will he commend Lord Hunt's test that the HFEA must be satisfied that there is no other way of conducting the research or avoiding embryo use? Would it help if that were made explicit in the Bill?

Andrew Selous: Will my hon. Friend comment on the future storing of umbilical cord blood and whether he would like that to be increased, as proposed in the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), as a possible alternative to some of the avenues that he has discussed?

Andrew Lansley: In principle, yes. However, in practice, that route implies considerable resource constraints on the NHS, about which I am not in a position, or necessarily want, to make a commitment at this stage.

Andrew Lansley: Yes.
	Parents will want to consider the proposal and, if they can meet the resources, I personally believe that it would be acceptable for them to do that.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman raised the interesting question of why the Government changed their mind on human-animal hybrid embryos. Was not it because a scientific consensus emerged among the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, in a unanimous report, supported by people who do not often agree with someone such as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who supported the recommendation that the Bill should appear as drafted?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in that point. My constituency of South Cambridgeshire probably has as many scientists engaged in stem cell research as any constituency in the country. From the many people to whom I have spoken in my constituency, I believe that the consensus rests on the proposition that embryonic stem cell research is one of several models of research, which may deliver substantial therapeutic benefit in future, and on the fact that constraints emerged on the availability of human eggs, which meant that there were significant benefits to be derived from using animal eggs. However, that belief did not extend—and I have not heard that scientists in my constituency reached a consensus on the matter—to human-animal embryos in which there is a substantial mix of human and animal nuclear DNA.
	The document that the Government presented to the Science and Technology in January 2007 stated that
	"there may be different arguments—both scientific and ethical—applying to creation of hybrids by cell nuclear transfer which in terms of their nuclear DNA are ostensibly human,"—
	that applies to the research projects that have been licensed so far—
	"and to embryos containing both human and non-human nuclear DNA."
	I therefore find it perverse that the Government have not structured the Bill around the scientific consensus. They have not based the measure on the proposition that embryos that are ostensibly human can be created, and, by virtue of the use of animal eggs, may enable embryonic stem cell research to make progress. Instead, they have structured it in such a way as to permit the creation of embryos with both nucleic human and nucleic animal DNA. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) said, that is a 50:50 embryo, as it were.
	That is precisely the ethical judgment that was considered back in 1990, on the basis of the Warnock report. The conclusion reached then was that such a form of embryo research should not be contemplated. We need to consider whether we should amend the Bill to exclude embryos created by using human gametes and animal gametes or a human pronucleus and an animal pronucleus, as the Government propose under clause 4.

Ian Gibson: On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Medical Research Council, is it not a fact that there is no differentiation, and that 50 per cent. of the research effort goes equally into adult stem cell work and embryonic stem cell work? The MRC is playing it both ways, because as the hon. Gentleman said himself, it is not clear which will win out in the end. In fact, adult cells cannot make neuritis and are exactly the cells that one would want for brain damage to be repaired.

Andrew Lansley: I understand that the figures are, broadly speaking, 60 per cent. for embryonic stem cell research and 40 per cent. for adult stem cell research. In any case, there are other options, too.
	As we debate therapies for treating diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, I am reminded that only three years ago I was at the laboratory of molecular biology, which was doing groundbreaking work for the MRC, of which it is an intramural institute, that was based not on stem cells, but on understanding and manipulating the underlying molecular structure of the brain. I cannot judge—I could barely understand, let alone interpret and predict—which avenue of research will be most successful. The important thing is that they should be properly judged, one against the other.
	To complete the point, I understand fully that any embryos created under those circumstances could not be implanted in a woman—the Bill makes that prohibition clear—nor could they be kept beyond 14 days. However, the view taken consistently in framing the Bill in the first place is that embryos that are true hybrids and therefore not capable of being characterised simply as human should not be created.
	Let me turn to embryo testing. We understand that the interests of the child to be born must be paramount. The dignity of life demands that a life should not be created simply to serve the interests of another. However, the testing of embryos to prevent the implantation of an embryo with an inherited or genetic condition will, in many cases, be in the best interests of that child if the condition is life-threatening or would severely impair their quality of life. We will table amendments to ensure that the measures are restricted in that way.
	Likewise, we believe that the so-called "saviour sibling" provision should be tightly restricted to life-threatening conditions and those that would seriously impair the life of a sibling— [Interruption.] The Bill says "serious medical condition", but it does not specify in sufficient detail the criteria to be applied. The balance of advantage against ethical constraints must be judged case by case, and we need to provide strong language in the legislation to ensure that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority does not allow the boundary of what is to be permitted under the "saviour sibling" provision to be stretched too far over time. We will invite the House to consider amendments for that purpose.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and I had an exchange with the Secretary of State about the need for a father. We wanted to know whether there is a problem to which a remedy is required, but he did not answer that or offer evidence. I know that, through the code of practice, the HFEA has arrived at a point at which same-sex couples can access assisted reproduction through regulated clinics. It demands that prospective parents offer supportive parenting and a male role model.
	When responding to interventions, the Secretary of State said something that was inconsistent with the Bill, but that showed the direction in which it should go. Same-sex couples and single mothers can be successful parents, but if we enable a child to be born in circumstances in which a natural conception would not be possible, we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the welfare of the child is fully protected. It is in the interests of every child to have a mother and a father, but if no father is present—as is, unhappily, the case for many children today—a male role model should be available. For that reason, I, personally, do not regard the substitution of "supportive parenting" for "father" as sufficient. The reference to the need for a father, which has not been reflected in the code, should be re-cast in the legislation as "the need for supportive parenting and a father or a male role model."

Emily Thornberry: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that the new family unit will somehow be assessed by a doctor when such people come and ask for artificial insemination? Will the doctor need to say, "Show me Uncle Jim; I want to sit down and talk to him to find out just how much of a commitment he is making to this family, and how long he is likely to be around." Does he expect doctors to do that?

Andrew Lansley: No. I want to complete my speech quite quickly because there are many Members waiting to speak.
	The Secretary of State said, perfectly correctly, that the Government were proposing no changes to abortion legislation. Indeed, speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, I do not think that we are. However, when we come to consider amendments on abortion, I hope that the House will bear in mind three issues.
	First, there continue to be far too many abortions. We have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in western Europe. We fail too many young people through family breakdown, poor parenting, inadequate social support and poor education. Lack of self-esteem has a corrosive effect on young people, and I have no doubt that the high numbers of teenage abortions are a symptom of this wider malaise. This is a central challenge that we have to face in repairing our broken society, and we should not debate this matter in isolation from that challenge. Furthermore, far too many abortions—about a third—are repeat abortions. We must look at the effectiveness of sex education and of contraceptive services. Personally, I also believe that many more young women—women of any age, for that matter—should be made aware of, and offered, long-acting reversible contraception through the national health service.
	Secondly, if a woman needs an abortion in terms sanctioned by the Abortion Act 1967, it must surely be better for it to be an early, medical abortion than a later, surgical one. I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed, and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, needs to be maintained.
	Thirdly—consistent with that thought and with the principle of according increased protection to the foetus during its development—I believe that we should take a more restrictive view of late abortions. The change made in 1990, which lowered the time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, has clearly been justified. The limits set at each stage, from 1967 onwards, have been intended to reflect the limit of viability. The research published by Field and others in the  British Medical Journal last week was based on a study of the survival of extremely premature babies born in the former Trent health region. It clearly shows that an increased proportion of babies born at 24 and 25 weeks' gestation are surviving to be discharged home from neonatal intensive care. The authors report no corresponding increase in survival in respect of babies born at 23 weeks. It must be noted, however, that 18 per cent. of those babies admitted to neonatal intensive care did survive. As we are talking about a total of 510 babies a year born at 23 weeks' gestation, that means that approximately 100 of those babies would live and go home. If they were aborted at 23 weeks, they would not live.

Kevin Barron: May I first tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how pleased I am that the Bill is before us on Second Reading. I was involved in debates about the human embryo during the 1980s. Issues were posed in a private Member's Bill, which I will not go further into; I was also heavily involved in debating the legislation in the 1990s. My right hon. Friend was right to describe that legislation as pioneering—indeed it was. It was rightly debated extensively on the Floor of the House.
	Let me respond to both the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who mentioned that we now have 18 years of experience of regulation in this area. I and many other Members will have visited the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and talked to those who work for it. When it was introduced, it was not a blank sheet of paper for the future; it is quite different now from what it was back in 1990.
	I am pleased that we are updating the regulation of assisted reproduction and embryo research in the light of scientific developments over the past 18 years. In 1990, we were very restricted in what we could do; we need only look at the decisions that the House has taken on the issue, through statutory instruments, which we could not have taken back in 1990. I remember when I was a shadow health spokesman that I had to help a Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary to get through a provision on the lifetime of stored embryos. That had not been put in the original Bill—no one wanted to go there, because of the ethical issues at the time. The Committee of Selection hand-picked Labour Members to bring in time scales for the storage of human embryos, so that eggs whose owners had walked away and were untraceable could be got rid of. Those were the types of difficulties that were left because we could not know the detail in 1990. Eighteen years on, the situation is a little different.
	The Bill will help to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in embryo research, including stem cell research. In addition, it will reflect modern social attitudes and Government policies on the family. Given the changes introduced by the House over the past decade, that is necessary. Research involving human embryos is necessary for the progress of assisted conception techniques. That was true then and it is true now. According to House of Commons Library figures on IVF up to 2005, there are now thousands of IVF births a year whereas many years ago there were hundreds. That is a result of this type of research.
	Such research also holds great promise for the understanding and development of treatments for a range of diseases and disorders. In particular, embryonic stem cell research using cells extracted from early embryos potentially offers major breakthroughs in medical science. Research involving the creation of human embryos outside the body led to the first IVF-conceived birth in 1978—some Members of the House went to her 21st birthday held down here, when she came to say hello.
	The UK has a widely admired and established system of statutory regulation, based on an independent licensing authority, the HFEA, which reflects the special status of the human embryo, as recognised in the Warnock report which underpinned the 1990 Act. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that that special status should have been enshrined in legislation, but my understanding is that it is based on a gradualist approach to the moral status of the human embryo: that it has an increasing status as it develops. That is my understanding of why we legislated as we did in 1990. The law therefore allows research, but only within certain parameters, such as a 14-day limit on the development of embryos in vitro. The Bill seeks to update the existing law, primarily in the light of technological advances, thereby helping to maintain the UK's position as a leading research base.
	I want to comment on the three issues that will be subject to a free vote, on which many of us have written. On human admixed embryos, some of the language over the past 18 years has not changed at all, as the Easter sermon in Scotland showed. It is not about creating monsters, as much as people still make that argument about such science, and it never was. If it were, I would not have been as supportive of such science over the years. It is purely laboratory research and aimed at increasing knowledge about serious diseases and treatments for them. Embryos must be destroyed at 14 days, and so far no scientist has been able to develop the embryo beyond six days. Those embryos cannot be placed in a woman or, indeed, in an animal. Interestingly, no one is suggesting that the 14-day limit on which we agreed in 1990 should be changed. Whatever was said at the time, no one is saying now that we got it wrong then. Medical science has come nowhere near trying to give that boundary a shove, and telling us to change what we understood to be right and proper. I do not consider that the science has become out of control. I think that some of the decisions made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in 1990 were right, and that that has been shown by the test of time.
	The Bill seeks to clarify the regulation of human admixed embryos for research. The 1990 Act refers only to human embryos, not to new and innovative ways of creating embryos combining human and animal material, which is why the provision on admixed embryos has been introduced. The Bill proposes that the same licensing process should apply as for fully human embryos, and that the 14-day legal limit should apply to admixed embryos as well. The issue has arisen under the current legislation, as has the HFEA's responsibility for managing the science effectively on behalf of us legislators, and I see no problem with accepting that element of the Bill.
	Another issue is that of embryo screening and selection, and saviour siblings. The Bill spells out for the first time in law a number of rules relating to the screening and selection of embryos and gametes. In broad terms, embryo screening and selection will be allowed only for the purpose of screening out serious genetic diseases or disorders. The HFEA has licensed screening in a number of cases since 1990, including cases of single-gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis.
	The Bill will ban selecting the sex of a child except when the intention is to avoid a serious sex-linked disease, and it addresses the issue of saviour siblings. As a last resort, an embryo may be selected so that the resulting child is a tissue match for a seriously ill older brother or sister. That has been licensed in a handful of cases involving rare blood diseases. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred to the family of three young children and their mum and dad who appeared on BBC television this morning. They had to travel to America, a total journey of 80,000 miles. They were lucky in the sense that they were able to do that, unlike many of our constituents who might otherwise be assisted in the same way. The Bill makes clear that such activities are lawful, and gives Parliament the opportunity to debate them. I agree with that as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who has now left the Chamber, raised the issue of what he described as "spare parts". He asked whether saviour siblings could be created for the purpose of organ transplants. The simple answer is no. Whatever anyone may say, the Bill does not allow embryo selection decisions for that purpose, although other parts of the law—governed by the Human Tissue Authority—do allow it.
	Another issue that causes people to shuffle around in their seats a fair amount is that of the "need for a father". I do not think that the Bill is about "doing away with fathers", or about being politically correct. I think the Government are right to recognise the important role that fathers play in their children's lives. There is a range of policies designed to strengthen that role, and to underline fathers' responsibilities. In fact, the Bill will bring conditions into line with legislation already passed by the House on civil partnerships—

Andrew Lansley: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no direct relationship between the text of the Bill and the criteria applied in the NHS for access to infertility treatment. We have complained many times to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo) and her predecessors about the fact that arbitrary social criteria are applied. The changes in the Bill will not prevent that from happening. For example, the Bill will not stop primary care trusts from saying that a woman cannot have access to fertility treatment if her partner has children from a previous marriage, or from restricting access to such treatment for same-sex couples or single parents. It is a red herring to base arguments about the Bill on the NHS criteria.

Dari Taylor: The Bill is required. It is almost 20 years since the 1990 Act. The Bill ensures that the regulatory framework for assisted conception is brought up to date and its purpose clarified. The Bill's second function is to maintain public confidence. The subject of embryo research is complex and highly emotive and it is crucial that the public are kept on board.
	I speak as a female who is infertile and who went through years of medical treatment, sadly, without the doctors ever discovering why I could not conceive naturally. In Britain about 20 per cent. of young women and couples go through the same experience. They want a natural conception, they hope that scientific advances will help them, but in many cases those fail. The Bill deals with a regulatory framework that is of the utmost importance.
	As the chair of the all-party parliamentary infertility group, I want to put it on record that I see the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as an excellent body. It is highly professional, it has a sound reputation and it is seen as authoritative. Through its actions it protects patients, monitors safety and efficiency, reassures the public who are concerned about the manipulation of embryos, and it protects those working in the field. It is a highly professional organisation that commands worldwide respect.
	However, I am concerned that the Government have not chosen to examine the way in which the regulations impact not just on research, which is crucial and has been the subject of much debate today, but on treatment. I have previously pressed this case and failed, but I suggest to the House that to license "standard" IVF procedure and treatments now is excessive. I say that not because I think that there should be no inspection—of course there should. However, the Healthcare Commission could investigate, make judgments when appropriate and ensure effective service delivery. Instead, we have a system in which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Healthcare Commission regulate. We have been promised a lighter touch, but frankly it is not appropriate at this stage for us to continue with the HFEA's regulation of treatments.
	The licensing procedure often takes 18 months to deliver; it is highly costly and takes a very long time. Many of our clinics pay up to £70,000 a year to deliver the system to people who are diagnosed as having medical problems; those people are the one group with such problems to whom we say, "Sorry, but you have to pay for any hope of effective treatment." I am disappointed that the situation has not changed.
	My second concern is that the HFEA spends an inordinate amount of time deliberating over licences. Those are complex research licences, and nobody would deny the complexity that it tries to handle. I am really pleased that under the Bill the HFEA will be able to engage a committee of experts to help it deliver an effective licence. That is appropriate.

Kenneth Clarke: As several hon. Members have reminded me, I had the pleasure of moving the Second Reading of the 1990 Bill. I am glad that we all look back on that as a rather successful and ground-breaking piece of legislation on which we can now build. In case it be thought that this is causing an unusual degree of immodesty on my part, I must concede that—in common, I suspect, with the present Secretary of State—although I presided over those activities and played a leading part in taking the Bill through the House, my Minister of State, Virginia Bottomley, had played a far larger role in putting it together than I had, as had a large number of medics and officials in the Department. It was a necessary piece of legislation, and I am glad to say that, as a result of a very long and careful production process, it has been a success. I was Minister of State when my then boss, Norman Fowler, asked Baroness Warnock to consider the problem in 1982, before it had become a matter of major public controversy, and her recommendations created a virtual consensus that has remained until now and lies behind this Bill.
	It is important to bear in mind what the Bill is about, now that we are updating it as we undoubtedly must. Embryo research had been carried out in this country for about 20 years before we legislated in 1990. The first test-tube baby had been born in 1978 and IVF was becoming widespread. In the 12 years before the 1990 Act, such research was an entirely voluntary, unregulated activity, where each researcher made his or her judgment about the ethics involved and how far they should go. We had introduced a licensing authority in co-operation with the royal colleges, but its role was purely voluntary and advisory. Most respectable researchers allowed themselves to be guided by its views.
	The purpose of the 1990 legislation was to establish a regulatory and statutory framework. It was precisely because everybody agreed that the human tissue in question had to be treated with particular respect, and because everybody realised that serious ethical concerns were being raised about what was being done, that we set up the new authority. It was decided that the judgments involved should be made, to a certain extent, independently of Parliament, politicians and Ministers, when it came to particular areas of research, but it was set up for the purposes of control.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made the point that a happy side effect of the 1990 legislation was that it made this country one of the leading places in the world for research into degenerative diseases, genetic diseases and research of all kinds connected to the human embryo. It was not the purpose of that legislation, and it should not be the purpose of this Bill, to enable us to have a more permissive regime in order to compete with other jurisdictions. The point is to reassure citizens that Parliament has had regard to the need to set a proper legal and ethical framework within which the best scientists and medics can feel confident to proceed.
	That leads me to touch on the way in which the Bill is being handled, about which I have some criticisms—though none of the Secretary of State. I hope that I presented the Bill in 1990 in the same reasonable and sensible way that he just has. The Bill seems quite devoid of any party political or ideological content. In 1990, because of the very sensitive nature of the subject and the strong religious and philosophical views that people held, we introduced a quite different way of handling the legislation. A complete free vote was allowed to every Member of the Government—each and every Minister and not just each and every Back Bencher. Although as Ministers we presented the Bill to try to ensure that there was some sort of sensible, workable, well-drafted legal framework, we left it entirely to the House as to what the contents were.
	There was no question of Ministers being given permission to absent themselves on particular issues if they wanted. Ministers went into both Lobbies at various stages. When I spoke from the Front Bench, along with my colleagues who happened to be Ministers, I made a clear distinction—as the Secretary of State just did—between what I was saying on behalf of the Government, based on the advice of medics, or perhaps parliamentary draftsmen, and on what I was saying as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, which was my own ethical judgment that would determine the vote that I would cast. That is what should be done.
	My friend Geoffrey Howe, who was then Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House, had the biggest part to play in this matter when he insisted that we should table alternative amendments. The Government tabled a whole list of contradictory amendments.

Kenneth Clarke: It was confusing for those who do not normally look at the amendment paper. People published guides to it, as I recall, and we invited the House to choose from a range of options after how many weeks an abortion should be permitted. We asked for people's views on that, and it was an important way of proceeding. Contrary to my wishes, because I had other things to do at the time, the then Leader of the House insisted on the amendments being drafted in such a way that we could get into the debate on abortion at length.
	I do not make the point simply out of concern for Roman Catholic and other opponents of parts of the Bill on the Labour Benches, although I have the highest respect for their views, because no one can feel that they have absolute moral authority on the matter. However, I am concerned about the reputation of Parliament, and even about that of whipping votes. I believe in party disciple, and one sometimes needs to enforce the Whip on administrative, financial and legal matters—Members should revolt only now and again, and on serious matters of principle. However, the moral authority of legislation is affected if people are allowed to argue that it was pushed through with too much party political control.
	It is amazing that the 1990 Act lasted for 18 years, when we all know people who believe passionately that some of the things that it permits render it almost evil because they hold religious views that I simply do not share. I take a secular view of such matters. I am a social liberal, who is on the social liberal side of most of the arguments that the Bill presents. If it were simply a matter of realpolitik, I would tell the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip, "I don't know what you're worried about. If you allow a free vote, you'll find that the socially liberal majority of the House of Commons is enormous, entirely in line with the opinion of the citizenship at large." Governments often get a bigger majority with a free vote.
	I believe that the House of Commons should be given the right to demonstrate that all parties have the same range of views—on the Front and Back Benches—and the only possible expression of that in our constitution is through a free vote.

Brian Iddon: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. If anyone is in any doubt about any of its clauses, I recommend that they read the excellent debates in the other place, which were of a very high standard. I congratulate our peers, who have considerable expertise. I would particularly congratulate Lord Darzi of Denham and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon on the professional way in which they steered the Bill through the other place.
	Personally, I am excited about the potential for research that will be made possible by the application of the Bill when enacted. It can bring about a major step change in the advance of medical research. There have been important milestones on this route, many of which were controversial and were opposed vigorously in their own day. Fortunately, society has grown to accept those technologies today, so let me mention one or two examples.
	Organ transplant surgery was pioneered in South Africa, especially by Christiaan Barnard's work on heart transplant surgery in December 1967. He initially met a lot of opposition, but heart transplant surgery is now accepted and I do not hear much opposition to it in this day and age. Another example—it has already been mentioned—is in vitro fertilisation. It was pioneered by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, and led to the birth of Louise Brown, the first so-called "test-tube baby" at Oldham District and General hospital on 24 July 1978—30 years ago now. That technology, too, was highly controversial in its day, but we have grown to accept it. On the birth of Louise Brown, the Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, Cardinal Gordon Gray, said:
	"I have grave misgivings about the possible implications and consequences for the future".
	Similar warnings about the technology in the Bill are being repeated today.
	Throughout time, there has been a conflict between religion and science; we should remember Galileo, for example. It seems almost impossible to believe today, but Harvey's description of the circulation of the blood and the heart's role in it met large objections in his day.
	Tremendous advances have been made in the cure of disease, especially since the 1930s when the sulphonamides were bred out of our dyestuffs industry. As a result, deaths from cancer, infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases are all going down. However, a number of other diseases—some rare and mostly devastating for the people who have them—are not susceptible to cures by the use of modern drugs or by advanced surgery. A new breed of drugs, called biological drugs—200 of them in use today worldwide—have opened up some new treatments within the last 20 years for cancer, AIDS, neurological disorders, cancer-induced anaemia, heart disease, diabetes and some rare genetic disorders.
	Currently, there are some very difficult-to-treat diseases, including most of the genetic diseases and debilitating degenerative diseases such as muscular dystrophy, muscular sclerosis, motor neurone disease, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. This Bill gives hope for future generations of people who might suffer from those devastating diseases, and it holds out hope, too, for the millions who suffer from diabetes and heart disease, and for those who damage their spines, usually in accidents.
	We hope that by taking the nuclei out of a skin cell or other cell of sufferers of these diseases and creating admixed human embryos, which the Bill deals with, scientists will be able to find out how those diseases develop, with the ultimate goal of stopping them developing at all in every individual who might otherwise have acquired them. The intention is, ultimately, to lead to cures for those people, but the Bill is primarily about the necessary research. I would not want to mislead anyone by saying that there will be cures for some of these diseases tomorrow, next year or even in 10 years, as we are embarked on long-term research. Britain leads the world in embryo research, as demonstrated by the award of the 2007 Nobel prize for physiology or medicine to Sir Martin Evans of Cardiff university.

Gary Streeter: The House has been treated to a rich feast of speeches, demonstrating the diversity of opinion on the subject held by our constituents and certainly by right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Although I do not agree with everything—perhaps anything—that he said, I recognise his tremendous expertise in this field. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate.
	In making decisions about what human embryo research we will permit, we must, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, be guided by science and discovery. Our civilisation has always cherished progress and we should endorse those who legitimately strive to produce remedies against some of the worst diseases that assail human frailty, but we should not be too hasty in abandoning an ethical understanding of what it is to be human. Nor should we discard the wisdom of the ages: the wisdom that places humans as important moral objects, distinct from other animals. Reaching back to Plato and Aristotle, man has sought to understand the distinction between humans and the rest of nature. We need to hold in balance, on the one hand, our traditional understanding of who we are, including legitimate religious beliefs, and, on the other, important scientific endeavour. Why is it that some people who are so socially liberal are inclusive of everything apart from those who hold sincere religious beliefs? That is not true inclusiveness.
	Those of us who believe that some—not all—of the Bill's provisions should be rejected do not oppose research into therapies that could save and improve lives. However, we believe that there is a better way of conducting that research. I want to ensure that public money is spent most effectively. We are constantly told that more than 80 therapies have been developed from adult stem cell research, while so far no therapies at all have been developed as a result of embryonic stem cell research. We have still not been given an answer for that in the debate. Yes, of course, it takes a long time, but we have had 20 years. When the Minister winds up, will she tell us why she thinks that we have not had greater success in that important field?

Gary Streeter: Greater breakthroughs than we have seen in the past are necessary.
	Of the three main controversial issues in the Bill, I am instinctively against human admixed embryos, for moral reasons. I make no bones about that. Mixing the life essence of humans and animals is plain wrong, and a slippery slope to who knows where. But even the science seems to favour those of us who oppose this measure. Those who favour human admixed embryos rely on two main arguments: first, that admixed embryos are necessary because they will provide a mechanism for mapping genetic disorders; and, secondly, that they will make up for the shortage of human eggs.
	My concern is that the creation of human admixed embryonic stem cells is a distraction from areas of research that are proven to be more effective, because they will never be able to be used as a therapy and no one wishes to see them implanted. Thus, the only use for them is disease modelling. However, even in that context there is a vast problem. How far will such admixed embryos truly mirror the development of human embryos? Stuart Newman, from New York medical school—he has not been quoted yet, and we have had plenty of quotes—called it a poorly motivated experiment, and said that the
	"growth and development of the human-cow hybrid clone would say very little about the potential of a human only clone to develop in the same fashion."
	The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said that he could not place reliance on some of the current technology and research; I am afraid that I do not place reliance on hybrid research, as there is no guarantee that it will mirror a purely human embryo.

Gary Streeter: It was one of the arguments that I put forward. I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The slippery-slope point is that once such research is done, we know not where it will lead us. Parliament is not aware of everything that is done in this community and country every single day.
	The creation of induced pluripotent cells—I must confess that I do not really know what they are—or adult cells with embryonic stem cell properties, now, it seems, provides a credible alternative to embryonic stem cells. Human eggs are not needed in the creation of those IP cells, as they are created using adult human cells, such as skin tissue. They are already proving better at disease modelling, drug testing and investigating cell reprogramming. Dr. Robb MacLellan, a researcher at the Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at the University of California said on 1 May 2008:
	"I believe iPS cells address many of the shortcomings of human embryonic stem cells and are the future of regenerative medicine".
	The world is moving forward with these new technologies: they are the technologies that are internationally recognised as the future. The Bill enables British scientists to move further away from the cutting edge of their field—it promotes research into gas lamps when electricity has already been invented.

Gary Streeter: I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	I think Members will accept from their constituency experience that those are some of the hardest disorders and complaints to treat. I do not think we are doing particularly well at looking after people with mental health needs up and down the country, but many suffer from such psychological challenges because of their own upbringing. They may, for instance, have experienced extreme behaviour during their childhoods. We should not seek a physical cure for one child at the expense of possible additional mental challenges for others. As Immanuel Kant said, humans should be an end in themselves, never a means.

Ian Gibson: I believe that this is a skirmish in comparison with what will happen next Monday and Tuesday, when we deal with the nitty-gritty of some of these issues. We shall be able to have a real argy-bargy. I am sure that many of us have argued about the issues for 100 years and more, in cold flats, in universities and in schools. They have not gone away, and many of them are not new. All these questions—what is life, when is an embryo a gamete, what is the role of our maker—have been around for a long time.
	I should declare a couple of interests. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I chaired the Select Committee. We had epic discussions, and we split, not amicably. I earned a reputation as Dr. Frankenstein, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), and I have loved and lived that reputation ever since.
	I am also a member of the Stem Cell Foundation, which is part of a Medical Research Council unit. It contains some distinguished individuals who are interested in promoting the foundation, which was established in 2005 to support the advance of pioneering stem cell research into medical practice. We receive many private donations. So far we have received some £90 million, and we hope that when stem cell work starts to break through we shall be able to develop it in this country. Many of us remember what happened when monoclonal antibodies were discovered at Cambridge. The work was taken to the United States, and millions of people, as well as industries, benefited from our discoveries.
	I am very pleased to be continuing the stem cell work. As with everything in science, we live in hope that something will happen, but it is never possible to swear to it. I am 99.9 per cent. sure that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but who knows? Something just might happen. We live in a world in which interesting things turn up in science, and that is why we become involved. We want an environment in which we can research and find things out.
	I remember when, in the 1970s, we discussed genetic recombinant DNA. There were huge fights and marches in Boston to protest against the insertion of animal DNA into human cells and vice versa. It was the scientists themselves who regulated the position and determined the category into which the work should fall. They have now established the principle, and people carry out such work all the time. For example, human insulin and bacteria are made in animal cells, to the benefit of many people who suffer from diabetes.
	Science was what motivated us to examine the issue in 2004, but we knew that there was a public out there who had been involved in the debates about in vitro fertilisation, and much of what is being said now was said about it then. All the same words and phrases were used, such as "unnatural" and "playing God". Now in vitro fertilisation is standard practice, and we are talking of improvements that ought to be made. We should be pressurising the system to ensure that it is available to people, because having a child is very much part of being a human being, and wanting a healthy child is particularly so.
	There will be much more in medicine that will—I hope—really tax this place, feeding the need for Committees and debates. It is estimated that by 2012 everyone will be able to have their DNA examined for $10 and be told whether they are likely to suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer's, if they want to know. Such information could be seen as intrusive by those who prefer to accept that life is a hazard and not to know what will happen, but it will be available. Jim Watson, the Nobel prize winner, has just had his DNA examined, but he refused to allow the part that might predict Alzheimer's to be examined, because he has reached the age at which it might happen and he was not sure whether he could handle the knowledge emotionally.
	Very interesting developments are in prospect, and, as has been said before, we must be ahead of the curve and ensure we have the necessary legislation. Members have referred to the work in Japan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned the oncogene, which might be involved in the development of cancers—Nobel prize-winning stuff again—and might be carried by retroviruses when they are put into a particular cell. That is the problem with gene therapy—trying to change genetic problems by inserting DNA. We do not yet have a foolproof mechanism for the use of retrovirusues, although scientists are trying to find other ways of getting genes into adult cells while preventing the development of cancers.
	Not all scientists agree with this type of work. For example, in an article entitled, "The Production of Admixed Animal-Human Embryos: Is it Necessary, or Merely Desirable?", Professor Michael Balls—a familiar name in this place—from FRAME, an organisation that tries to stop animals being used in medical research, questions the partial arrogance of science in wanting to do such things. Therefore, scientists do argue about whether this is a valid procedure in conference centres and debating halls—as I said, we have managed to hammer out the issue of recombinant DNA. My bet is that the scientific community, including the medics, and the public—when they are engaged—will be able to say what they think about these embryos.
	Admixed embryos are not new. Indeed, I remember merging mouse cells and human cells and getting chromosomes—genetic material—from mice and humans. A competition went on between them, and the cells and chromosomes that developed were mainly human. As a result, we found out about matters such as which DNA genes and chromosomes were next to each other. That has now developed into the human genome field, which has so much potential in developing our attitudes on, and knowledge of, health. As there were admixed embryos in the past, I think there will continue to be such embryos.
	We need the potential for making stem cells. Some stem cells at certain layers in the blastocyst are better at developing than others. Some people say, "Embryonic stem cells haven't done anything." That is not quite true. We have to go through very strong safety conditions and procedures, and we use mice and rats. People might be against that experimentation, too, but it is the law and it has to be followed. Certain situations, such as where there are model mental health problems in mice or rats, can be corrected by injecting embryonic stem cells.

Ian Gibson: Yes, that is true; it is the stuff of science fiction, and people see it on the television so they are persuaded to believe that it will happen and that evil people in white coats are running around trying to do that and thinking, "Who cares about a Nobel prize when we can produce a three-headed monster; that's a real achievement." None of the scientists I know ever talks about that; they may do so in a jocular way after a couple of pints, but so far as I know no one wants to do that. There is no gain or benefit; there are merely problems, and it is unlikely to happen.
	It is unlikely that these admixtures can reach the 14-day stage at present in any case, but it is possible to get very good stem cells at different stages. We know that there are pre-stem cells in certain cancers, and if they are in somebody with a leukaemia, that can develop at later stages into full-blown leukaemia. So the development of drugs against pre-stem cells—we do not have to go into the detail—is much more effective than doing that at later stem-cell stages. We have only managed to do that by being able to do the kind of test I mentioned.
	I said that I was 99.9 per cent. sure that the sun would rise tomorrow morning. The same percentage is often cited in respect of mitochondria and hybrid admixed embryos. The mitochondrial DNA is the contribution from the animals; that is the 0.1 per cent. We should not dismiss mitochondrial DNA by saying that as it is only 0.1 per cent. so it does not matter. Importantly, there are many mitochondrial diseases in human beings. We should look at the evidence. Work is still being done on this; such embryonic research is difficult, because when we try to make embryos by this method we have to look at the mitochondria. It must be asked whether there is a possibility that material from the nucleus—the DNA—also adds things to the mitochondria, and whether the mitochondrial DNA does, too. Is there an interaction between them, and what actually happens? It appears that in certain cases with such hybrids, human mitochondria starts to appear. It can be assessed by its DNA. Therefore, there is still a lot to learn in that area, even though it is only 0.1 per cent. of DNA. However, there is no evidence that this affects the stem cells produced, and the way they grow, and how they look. Their morphology is one thing, but their biochemistry is another thing, and there is no evidence of any changes in that.
	It must be pointed out that this is all being done in a very regulated work environment. That regulation is done not only by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, but by local ethical committees. It is necessary to get permission from them to do this kind of research. Lord Winston in the other place complains, of course, saying there is too much regulation; but we have a lot of regulation that makes this work.
	Let me end by making the following point. There are people in this House—one or two I know of—who have parts of a pig attached to their heart. That keeps them alive. We do not need hypocrisy in this matter. We can have combined pigs and human beings to keep people in this House—and elsewhere—alive. There are combinations from different sources, and we should welcome that.

Robert Key: There is a difficulty with this matter. I have produced from my copious notes the result of a poll that was produced recently in the national press. It asked:
	"Should human-animal embryos be allowed?
	All sorts of statistics were printed, one example being that 50 per cent. of people said yes to that. It also asked:
	"Should IVF proceed without the 'need for a father'?"
	Some 40 per cent. of people said yes to that whereas 32 per cent. said no—or possibly the other way round. The poll is extraordinary, but it does not represent public opinion in the sense of social indicators as the result of basic, serious, professional, social science research into public opinion in this country in this area—we have that not. The Government have admitted that no such research has been done, which is why the Joint Committee, on which my hon. Friend and I served, has recommended that the Government should forthwith start doing that research; they should commission that serious research, so that we do not have to rely on what  The Sun says its readers think or on what any other organ thinks its readers think.

Phil Willis: It was not a plea for more time.
	I want to start by echoing the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Salisbury (Robert Key) in their plea for a bioethics committee. The issue was raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North when he chaired the Science and Technology Committee during its inquiry into human reproductive technologies and the law. It was raised in the Joint Committee and the Science and Technology Committee when they considered the legislation. It is nonsense that there is no mechanism to bring together people from both Houses to debate ethics and advise the Government on issues of such importance, and that the Government have to look elsewhere for such advice.
	I begin my brief comments by congratulating the Government on their measured and deliberative approach to the Bill. It is rare but extremely welcome for significant policy changes to be based not on media hype or dogma but on research evidence, and to be subject to careful parliamentary scrutiny. However, I have to tell the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), that the programming is giving all Members real cause for concern. To allocate only three hours' debate for the whole of schedule 2 is unrealistic. I think Ministers believe that the schedule is about saviour siblings, but it is significantly more than that; it is also about embryo testing, sex selection, storage limits, the licence of therapies, the Lord Hunt test and, most important, the use of hybrid embryos. That is what the hamster test is—a hybrid embryo—and it has never been regulated in law, yet it will come under schedule 2.
	The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who will take the Bill through the House, has now returned to the Chamber. It is important that she argues for far more time for discussion of those matters; otherwise people will feel cheated and pressure groups will say that the Government simply railroaded the Bill through Parliament, which will undermine all the work the Government have done.

David Burrowes: I commend the hon. Gentleman on chairing the Joint Committee with such dexterity and on dealing with issues of great complexity and depth in a fairly short time. I commend him, too, on his point about the lack of parliamentary time. I offer him an example relating to human admixed embryos, where there is a lack of definition, which exercised the minds of our Committee and the other place. There is still no definition, only illustrative examples, so how can we really have a clear Bill and clear regulation?

Emily Thornberry: I welcome the provisions in the Bill that allow the screening of embryos for tissue matches to enable the treatment of siblings with serious medical conditions, and I agree that the right measures are in place in the Bill to safeguard the welfare of the resulting child. The Bill also provides clear, necessary guidance on the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and places limits on its use. The measures in the Bill to regulate the scientific use of embryos, including human admixed embryos, will offer vital opportunities for research on medical conditions such as Parkinson's disease, so that we can move closer to new treatments.
	I will resist the temptation to discuss abortion today, but if any misguided attempts are made to limit women's access to abortion, I will certainly attempt to speak again, because I have a great deal to say on that issue. I speak as the representative of Islington, South and Finsbury, where there are 3,640 single parents. If there were a league table of single parents with dependent children, Islington would be in the top 20. In Islington, there are a great many gay marriages; there is at least one gay marriage a day, and a very large number of gay people in my constituency now live together in legally recognised, loving relationships. It is the experience of my constituents that heterosexual couples do not have a monopoly on good parenting.
	I should like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on her passionate speech, which showed her at her absolute best. She is completely right to ask why, if gay people are appropriate adoptive parents, they cannot have children of their own. I accept that single parents have a difficult, demanding job, but they are fed up with being demonised by some Conservative Members. Children need consistent parenting, clear boundaries and, most importantly, a loving home. My late mother brought up three children on her own, and she coped by making sure that she had friends who supported not only her but us, and who provided male role models, where necessary, for my brothers and me.
	It is claimed that if, through clause 14(2), we replaced
	"the need...for a father"
	with a need for "supportive parenting", it would fundamentally undermine fatherhood. "Supportive parenting" and "fatherhood" are hardly mutually exclusive—well, not in the majority of cases, anyway. Hon. Members should look at the other side of the coin: allowing the phrase,
	"the need...for a father"
	to remain would expressly discriminate against single women and lesbian couples. Frankly, that will not do. It is discriminatory and unfair. Essentially, that is my point, and I could sit down now, but I will not, because I also want to discuss the issue of birth certificates, which has not really been touched on.
	Schedule 2 will change birth certificates. There has been a great deal of heat and not much light in some debates on the subject. Let us take the example of three couples who become parents with the help of a sperm donor. In the case of the first couple, a heterosexual married couple, both people will be on the birth certificate, even if the father is not the biological father. If the second couple, a heterosexual unmarried couple, have a child through sperm donation, both people can be on the birth certificate, even if the father is not the biological father, so long as he goes to register the birth. In time, the children could go to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority register, where they could find out the name and last known address of their biological father, and any important biological data—such data will, of course, become increasingly important for children who are born now.
	If the third couple were lesbians, they could be refused a donor if they did not bring along an Uncle Ben, or some other man, to prove that they understood
	"the need...for a father".
	If they were refused a donor, they might enter into informal arrangements, which would mean that only one of them—the biological mother—would be on the birth certificate. The child would then be unlikely ever to know their father or find out any details about them. In addition, the lesbian partner would have absolutely no rights, even though she was, in practice, a parent. That is not fair or right, and it is not 21st century.
	Let us say that that third couple managed to get a donor, perhaps by bringing along a male friend. As the law currently stands, only the biological mother would be on the birth certificate, although the biological father would be on the register held by the authority. Again, that is not fair; it is discriminatory and it has negative effects on the child. Until the non-biological mother adopts, she has absolutely no rights as a parent, even though the child was born into a stable, loving relationship that had been legally endorsed through a civil partnership. That is not right. If the non-biological mother's partner dies when the child is 18 months old, the second parent will have absolutely no rights over the child. In fact, the biological mother's parents could take away the child and not give the other parent any access at all to the toddler. Is that fair? No, it is not.
	What I am saying is not political correctness, or if it is, I do not care. It is just correctness. It is basic justice; it is what is right. If we maintain
	"the need...for a father",
	we continue to discriminate against single women and lesbians who want to be mothers. Hon. Members should not misunderstand: those women will still become mothers. We will not be able to stop them. However, holding back the legislation will not supply their children with a single additional parent. If the legislation is not passed, hundreds of children of lesbian parents will be denied the opportunity to have a second loving parent at the heart of their family. We should do the right thing.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Over the past weeks and months, I have read the  Hansard transcripts of the many hours of debate on the Bill in the House of Lords, and I have followed the subsequent debates and controversies in leading newspapers and on the television. Before immersing myself in  Hansard, I had only a broad, under-informed view of the issues. My understanding and preconceptions have been significantly augmented by the Lords' debates.
	Unfortunately, to my mind, few peers understood the biology and the law involved, which meant that only on issues such as saviour siblings, which could be properly understood because they did not have a scientific background, did we see a healthy debate in which all peers could take part. This Government have failed to heed the assessment of the Joint Committee on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Draft) Bill that the Bill lacked an ethical underpinning. The Committee suggested a joint bioethics committee of both Houses to consider bioethical issues, such as the ones raised by the Bill, and a Lords amendment, which was not voted on, suggested a national bioethics committees. Neither of those ideas was adopted, which means that neither the House of Lords nor the House of Commons will have received a vitally needed, scientifically independent bioethical viewpoint on the Bill. I believe that the Bill should not have proceeded without one.
	There has been much discussion on the topic of animal-human hybrids, and I support the views of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), which put the matter very well indeed. Most reasonable people would say that to combine an animal and human embryo is, by definition, monstrous. I regret that individuals who expressed such views have been accused of hype. If anyone was guilty of hype it was Professor Winston and his colleagues who favoured embryonic stem cells, which have not produced any therapies despite 18 years of research, over adult stem cells, which have already produced more than 80 treatments.
	The scientific community, which sees the embryo as nothing more than a clump of cells, denies any respect for the sanctity of life or human dignity. In my mind, a human embryo is a potential human being, the personhood of which needs to be respected. In France, the personhood of embryos has recently been recognised by allowing women who have miscarried between 18 and 20 weeks the right to register a name.
	I am pro-life, but being pro-life does not necessarily mean being religious, and pro-life organisations are not normally religious. The dictionary definition of pro-life includes the phrase "opposed to abortion" Many of the proposals in the Bill are anti-life because many embryos will be killed to achieve the aims of the research and procedures. Most quality of life arguments lead to the conclusion that life of a lower quality ought to be terminated or that a life that might reduce the quality of another ought to be snuffed out. I cannot agree with those proposals.
	The creation of animal-human hybrids is based on a utilitarian mentality that human life can be treated simply as research material if it benefits the common good. Most crucially, it violates the dignity of the human person. The United Kingdom has already breached article 18 of the European convention on human rights and biomedicine by the creation of human embryos for research purposes. Many European countries would not even consider the creation of animal-human embryos. The shortage of eggs should not be used as an excuse for such research; only ethical avenues of research should be allowed. Countries such as Australia, Canada and the USA have legislation to prohibit such research. China, Japan and South Korea may allow experiments in this area, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has failed to give details of any other country that has legislated to allow it. There is little appreciation of how far out on a limb the UK is in relation to the creation of human admixed embryos.
	Ethical concerns about abortion and embryology mean that advances should be treated with additional caution. Launching into ethically dubious areas will not solve the ethical problem—it will compound it. "Progress" in this area is actually a backwards step that takes us further down the slippery slope of moral decline by crossing the species barrier and treating humans no better than animals. In fact, legislation in this country gives animals better protection than the human foetus because under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, an animal embryo becomes a protected animal after half its gestation period, which is equivalent to 20 weeks for a human being.
	The press statement issued by the HFEA on 5 September 2007 said that the public expected animal-human embryos for research to be tightly regulated. The evidence is that two applications that allow for animal-human hybrids were not required to have any additional safeguards. Even the Select Committee on Science and Technology argued for risk management because of the concerns raised by the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics that scientists undertaking such research risked creating new diseases. No consideration has been given to safety issues in the Bill, and cow eggs are simply obtained from local abattoirs.
	I come to the deliberate removal of an explicit reference to the father on a child's birth certificate. The Bill will not only allow for designer babies, but for designer artificially created families. Such registration of children on birth certificates will result in the creation of two-father and two-mother families. No account is to be taken of the child's right to a mother and a father. That right should never be outweighed, particularly not by the supposed rights of adults to choose to engineer the structure of their family as they please. The rights of adults are paramount in the proposals before us, while the best interests of the child are totally ignored. The effect on the child's identity, or their gender confusion, has not even been considered. A child is to be treated as a mere commodity, where someone can opt to become the other parent simply by giving notice. That child product, like a washing machine, can be registered by two mothers as parents on the birth certificate.
	There are genuine religious concerns, and plenty of biblical passages support the family. They should not be constantly devalued or perceived as old fashioned. It is not old-fashioned homophobia to support the traditional family. I oppose unjustified discrimination against homosexuals, but I must protect the traditional notion of a family. Homophobia means a fear of homosexuals and the term is not appropriate in our current discussion. Opposition to the creation of same-sex parented families does not imply a fear of homosexuals or rejection of homosexual relationships; it is the simple assertion of the rights of a child.
	I cannot support Second Reading. Hon. Members of all parties have expressed well the same arguments against it as I have, but I wish to register a further concern. Three hours is not sufficient to debate abortion or to discuss saviour siblings and all the other contentious issues that have been raised this afternoon. I ask the Government to consider extending that time. Without such reassurances, I shall also vote against the programme motion.

Evan Harris: I declare an interest as a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee and a member of the former Select Committee on Science and Technology, which conducted two relevant inquires in this Parliament. One was on hybrid embryos and the other was on scientific advances relating to abortion law. I was also a member of the Science and Technology Committee in the previous Parliament, as was the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), that conducted a wide-ranging inquiry into the issues, which presaged the Government's consultation, which led eventually to the White Paper.
	We have heard some powerful speeches in this excellent debate on both sides of the argument. There are strongly and sincerely held views on both sides. However, it is important to stress that we are not discussing a matter that pitches science against morality. In my view, there are morality and ethical codes on both sides. I feel, for example, morally obliged to support the Bill. I do not accept the view that it is only science that is in favour of the measure and that the opposition to the Bill has all the moral and ethical arguments. In fact, I would obviously say that that opposition was wrong—although I respect the views taken—and that it is ethically wrong to seek to stand in the way of some of that research.
	I was particularly pleased to see scientists standing shoulder to shoulder with patients at lunchtime today, in a show of support for the Bill in Old Palace Yard, opposite Parliament. Often we see only the protest from people who feel strongly against something, particularly measures such as this Bill. It is appropriate that Ministers should know not only that there is public support for embryo research for medical purposes—indeed, I think that the Government do know that—but that people are willing to come out and show themselves publicly in support of the measure.
	I pay tribute to those people, and to the scientist and patient groups and the medical charities that have done so much to explain to the media, parliamentarians and the public what the research is about. It is much easier if those explanations come from patients, patient charities, doctors and scientists than simply from Ministers or other politicians, who may seem to have a vested policy interest in the matter, even though I do not doubt the sincerity of people on either side of the debate.
	The Government deserve some plaudits or bringing forward the Bill in its current state. The White Paper was not the best way of interpreting the results of the consultation, but the Bill is far better than that presaged in the White Paper. That is a result of the Government's willingness to listen to the reports of scrutiny committees, such as the Select Committees that considered the matter. Governments and political parties are sometimes unwilling to change their expressed view for fear of being accused of doing a U-turn, but in this case, where there is a need to consider scientific evidence, it is appropriate that the Government have done so.

Evan Harris: What I can say is that when the Science and Technology Committee considered the issue more recently, there was unanimity, which included the three Conservative Members, two of whom have a strong history of voting for pro-life positions. They had recognised—by the time we reported in 2007—that the evidence was clear that authorising embryo research would be ethically appropriate and scientifically justified.
	I should like also to thank the Government for listening to the concerns—expressed through the House of Lords—of scientists about consent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned. The Government have to pay some attention to the timetable. It would be a pity if some people felt that they could not support certain measures in the Bill because we had not been given enough time, although I obviously understand the pressure on Government time. The Government should hold out some hope that they will seek to amend the Bill in certain areas, if only to give clarity on, for example, whether embryos can be licensed for therapy as well as research.
	A number of interesting points have been made by opponents of that measure, although it is unfair to characterise the position of embryonic stem cell research in the way that they did. For example, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) argued that after 20 years of embryonic stem cell research there were still no therapies. As the Minister rightly said in an intervention, however, the technology is relatively recent; indeed, it was only possible to pursue it in this country following the passage of the 2001 cloning regulations. I understand that there is already the prospect of two early clinical trials in the United States relating to—I believe; I am not certain—the treatment of spinal injuries and serious retinal disease.
	We also heard the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) citing leading scientists, apparently in support of her position. I intervened to say how inappropriate that was. Sir Martin Evans, Robin Lovell-Badge, Professor Martin Bobrow and Sir Liam Donaldson all support the measures in the Bill. Quoting them out of context and then misinterpreting what they said on specific points does not do justice to the debate.
	True hybrids were discussed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. The reason why the Select Committee advocated including true hybrids in the permissive regime and allowing the HFEA to license their use if an appropriate application came forward was that there was no good reason not to. Once one accepts that it is legitimate to do destructive medical research on human embryos, there is no ethical reason to give greater protection to things that are not human embryos. It would be an inversion of everyone's ethical compass to say that certain embryo entities require greater protection than a fully human embryo.
	It is true that scientists have not yet, beyond the hamster test, identified potential scientific uses for true hybrids, but if they do not, the HFEA would not then license their use, because that research would not be necessary or desirable enough and neither would the further test, that it is necessary to use embryos at all, be satisfied. It would be wrong to have a ban in primary legislation, however, because a non-ethically difficult use might come along in a few years' time, and the House might then be required to pass new primary legislation. The onus is on hon. Members such as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to show why we should not give the HFEA the power to license such research if the appropriate requirements are met.
	I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), who is not in his place and whom I genuinely respect for the clarity of his views, argue that there were no safeguards for saviour siblings. Common law provides significant safeguards for children regarding non-therapeutic acts such as the donation of bone-marrow and other interventions. It is ridiculous to suggest that hospital ethics committees, doctors—who are subject to General Medical Council supervision—and common assault laws would allow the removal of body parts from living children, even without the Lords amendment that the Minister mentioned, which would prevent the use of saviour sibling legislation to presage the use of solid organs. There is no prospect of children's bodies being raided for organs against their best interests, and there has never been any question of that happening. Children have always been able to donate tissue to siblings, and our having the ability to do tissue-typing in advance does not change that.
	Hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate have asked whether harm would be done to the saviour sibling. One can envisage circumstances in which a saviour sibling might ask, "What was the purpose of my being born?", but there is no evidence that that will happen. There is, however, clear evidence that if we do not allow these changes, small numbers of children—the siblings who are ill—would die. It is therefore appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of that clear evidence, and to proceed on that basis. I cannot see harm coming to a saviour sibling in a case such as that of the Whitakers, who were mentioned earlier. They ended up with two healthy children, but the alternative would have been that they ended up with none.

John Bercow: It is certainly true that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate envisaged harm to saviour siblings, but the harm that he envisaged was purely speculative. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend was in danger of universalising from his sense of what would be favoured by his family? He is entitled to his view about what should apply to his family, but it is not clear why he should seek, on the basis of speculation, to prescribe for the rest of the nation in quite such a fashion.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to have an opportunity to take part in such an excellent debate, in which many viewpoints have been well put by many colleagues. No such debate takes place in isolation from scientific advance or ethical debate outside. I do not want to deal with the heavy aspects of individual parts of the Bill, each of which could take several hours, but to address what Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was speaking about at the weekend, and what others have spoken about: the great pressure from those outside this place without a faith perspective to deny that those who do have faith to hold valid views, and to deny them the opportunity to persuade others about their views. That is not a new phenomenon, but it has had renewed vigour in recent months and years. From well-known commentators to academics, that approach is presented not as an attack on free speech, which it is, but yet another step on the enlightenment path to make us happy, rational and free. It is not a challenge that Christians in the public square are prepared to duck.
	Commentators in national newspapers have been forthright, not only on Christians' right to speak on this issue, but generically about Christians in the public sphere—attacking their right to hold to faith or at least to propound it as part of their reasons to do something. Among the clamour when Tony Blair mentioned God in the famous "Parkinson" interview, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was quoted on the BBC website as saying that his remarks were "bizarre", and warned against politicians making "references to deity" in public life.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the clarification. The hon. Gentleman will not be the first colleague not to have been entirely accurately represented by the BBC. I am also delighted that the honorary president of the National Secular Society now welcomes the opportunity for politicians in the public square to put forward a defence of their views based on faith.
	When I cast my votes on embryo research, abortion or the concept of fatherhood, on what do my constituents expect me to base my view? Is it their opinions and views? Certainly. Is it evidence from different sources about the impact of legislation? Yes, of course. At some stage, I must, as we all must, choose between competing views. But what else do I base my views on? I have a Christian world view, which impacts on those issues. It is not much of a secret, either in this place or my constituency. I do not believe in an impersonal universe: one made up of random collections of matter and energy. I believe that there is a God. Among other things, I believe that his plan for his universe holds life to be dear and sacred. No other understanding of my world makes sense to me.
	I also hold a view, deeply influenced by Jesus's parable of the prodigal son, that God's laws for us are not designed to punish, to hurt or to prevent good things happening, but to warn us away from things that do us harm, and to safeguard the creation that he loves. Modern society provides plenty of evidence of the truth of that. It is a positive interpretation of God that makes sense to millions.
	My Christian tradition also tells me that God works with us to interpret and unveil his creation. We do so with trepidation and humility, recognising both our fallibility and the viewpoints of others, which we must respect. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) is entirely right: there is a moderate Christian view to be put. That view does respect others. There is also an obligation on us to handle the arguments carefully and not to over-sensationalise either the arguments or those who hold to a different view. In relation to medicine or physics, we do not know everything, but scientific revelation, in which many Christians are involved, uncovers more every day.
	By combining my beliefs, my knowledge and the evaluation of what is new, I come to a conclusion about how I might vote in this place on the matters before us today. But I cannot see why my vote or opinion should carry less weight than those of others because it has a base of faith, nor why any reference that I should make to God in that context should be considered bizarre by anyone.
	Just over a month ago,  The Independent on Sunday launched an attack—or what constitutes an attack for  The Independent on Sunday—on a group of 12 Members of Parliament of all parties for having in their offices interns from the Christian charity CARE. Beneath the emotive and misleading headline "Evangelicals fund MPs ahead of embryo vote" was an article that was equally distorting, trading on the ignorance of the public to suggest that our interns' passes—the same as those held by 13,000 other people—gave them privileged access with which they could influence MPs, and that the position of some of the MPs mentioned in the article, such as mine in the Opposition Whips' Office, would allow them to exert undue influence on colleagues. There was also the old chestnut that all this was based on what had happened in the United States and heralded the rise of the evangelical right—ironically, just as that influence is, quite properly in my view, in decline over there. That last point must have been especially galling to colleagues who may be further to the political left than me.
	However, the heart of the attack, and my reason for raising it tonight, was contained in the paper's leader column, and in a quotation from Richard Dawkins:
	"If only these restless busybodies would keep their prejudices to themselves, nobody would object. But they can't resist inflicting their ignorant opinions on others."
	I presume that that must be some other Richard Dawkins rather than the one who, I believe, has made a small fortune out of his prejudices by inflicting them on the public; but that is by the bye. The leader column also referred to "infiltration", and stated:
	"We do not accept... that the religious beliefs of a minority should be allowed a veto on medical research that benefits society as a whole."
	Well, nor do I. Have I missed something? Does my vote tonight or next week constitute a veto in the House? Who within the Christian community has ever suggested that we do or should exercise such a veto? But why should my vote be devalued, or considered less well-judged or lacking in integrity, because it stems from a Christian or other faith base?
	The article also failed to let the public know that, despite the allegedly shadowy influence on us, MPs with CARE interns do not universally vote the same way on these issues, and I suspect that they will not do so tonight or next week. We reflect the same diversity of opinion as many parts of the Church itself, because our basic principles are rounded by our experience and judgment. Society should not be afraid of that, or lack confidence in those who form their views in the belief that their judgments are ultimately accountable to a power beyond this House.
	On Saturday I marched through my constituency with a group representing Christians from many denominations who wanted to draw attention to the "turn on the tap" campaign, which highlights the need for clean water throughout the developing world. Yesterday and today, we listened with heartbreak and humility as the mother of the murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen spoke of the pity in her heart—not bitterness—for the family of the youth who had brutally killed her son.
	The Christian love and faith that informed my constituents of their commitments to their neighbours overseas and which drives millions to give themselves and their resources to work all over the world, and God's sense of forgiveness which filled the heart of a grieving mother, would rightly—I think—be praised and lauded by society, and by all of us here. Why should such a wellspring of goodness be considered unworthy of portrayal in the public square? When does that faith turn into the "prejudice" and "dogma" that opponents throw at Christians who have views on this issue? Why should the faith that gives me and hundreds of other Members of Parliament their inspiration to be in public life, their sense of justice, their commitment to others, their views on life and death, their reference point beyond solely the beat of the party drum or the passing fancy of a modern fashion be considered a threat to this place, rather than a voice that millions will recognise?
	We may not always be right. We may not always be in a majority. However, it is not for those who disagree with us to seek to deny our views a fair hearing.

Mark Simmonds: This has been an excellent and stimulating debate, which has belied the concerns, rumours and accusations that the House could not cope with such complex issues. There have been contributions demonstrating real passion and real expertise. The contributions have been intelligent and well informed, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State.
	The Bill is evolutionary and thought provoking, but the debate has demonstrated the significant diversity and disparity of views in the House, reflecting the diversity and disparity of views outside, although not necessarily in the same proportion. I have enormous respect for those with ethical and moral reservations about the Bill. As one who is married to a south American Catholic, I understand how deeply and passionately held those views are. The comments that I am about to make from the Dispatch Box are therefore my personal views, not necessarily those of the entire party that I represent.
	The 1990 Act has proved a robust piece of legislation. Credit for that must go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who, with his colleagues, piloted the Bill successfully through the House 18 years ago. The Act was also built on the excellent work of Baroness Warnock and her colleagues, whose ideas were its precursors. However, the 1990 Act should now be updated and reviewed, within an ethical framework, in the light of advances in science, medicine and technology.
	As other Members have said, Britain is a world leader in reproductive stem cell technologies. We should be proud of that heritage and want Britain to remain at the forefront of such scientific research, in a clear ethical framework. Britain has flourished in the field, not only because of the skills of our scientists and our first-class facilities but because of the clearly defined regulatory environment, grounded on ethical platforms.
	It is right that the complex issues involved should be carefully considered in Parliament and the country as a whole, and I welcome the national debate on many of the controversial and important issues. However, it is also right that Members should be able to vote with their consciences on these key moral issues. It was wrong of the Government to try to whip the Bill, as they originally intended, and it was wrong to whip the Bill in the other place. I am pleased that Conservative Members will have a free vote throughout the Bill's passage.
	In answering interventions from my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), both distinguished and experienced Members, the Secretary of State gave no decent response on why Government Members would not get a completely free vote, which the House had in 1990. I suspect that if the Secretary of State and the Minister had their way, this would be a completely free vote for Government Members.
	There is a large number of controversial and complex aspects to the Bill and it is right that some of the votes should be on the Floor of the House; we Conservatives have been pressing for that. I am pleased that many more Members will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We believe that the programme motion is incorrect and that there should be longer debates, particularly on admix embryos. If we are to debate abortion as part of our discussion of the Bill, that should be for longer than three hours.
	The debate on schedule 2, which contains provisions on not only saviour siblings, but such important issues as embryo selection, embryo research and, potentially, the issue of birth certificates, will all be taken in a three-hour period next Tuesday afternoon if the programme motion goes through. That will not allow anything like the time that should be allocated for such significant issues. We will have time to debate in detail the four different types of admix embryos, but there are significant differences between them. I will not go through them in detail now, but I want to highlight one or two key differences. Cytoplasmic embryos are a mix of only up to 0.1 per cent. of the genetic material. Transgenic embryos probably usually transmit only one gene—but not gametes, which are sex cells—into animal mitochondria. Human-animal chimera embryos are useful for understanding how stem cells develop into the different types of cells in our bodies.
	However, the main issue during the debate on admix embryos will be the necessity or otherwise for true hybrids. Some hon. Members have said that they do not believe that there are disparities between the types of potential admix embryos, but there are. True hybrids are the only ones that are 50-50 and the only ones to merge the sex cells of animals and humans. We shall certainly table further amendments to enable further discussion on these important issues.
	There is a shortage of eggs, a point rightly articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). However, it must be understood that the animal eggs are used only as a vessel to ensure an ample supply of eggs for research. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and others have cited the work of Professor Yamanaka in Kyoto. Recently, I was fortunate enough to go to Kyoto university to discuss these issues with Professor Yamanaka's team, which does not want embryonic stem cell research to cease. In fact, it needs to have a laboratory in California, which has a more permissive regulatory regime than Japan, in order to carry out embryonic stem cell research and continue its work on pluripotent cells. Let me quote what it said when I asked what would happen if embryonic stem cell research was not allowed: "We still need embryonic stem cells. If embryonic stem cells were not allowed we would be in trouble. Achievements here are based on former work done on embryonic stem cells."
	These issues are not mutually exclusive. The development of induced pluripotent cells is an excellent advance, but the process is not without problems. Many scientists are concerned about the risk of telomere degeneration in induced pluripotent cells, as well as mitochondrial degeneration, damage from the virus used to stimulate reproduction, and the risk of reintroducing defective genes, culminating in potentially significant tumour growth—a point correctly made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). I believe that all types of stem cell research—embryonic, adult and cord blood—must continue, as we do not know which, if any, will herald cures for some of the serious diseases that exist. However, I have reservations about true hybrids, to which we will return in Committee.
	Hon. Members rightly raised the issue of saviour siblings and embryo selection. The Bill is absolutely right to outlaw sex selection for non-medical reasons. However, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis—PGD—will be permitted if there is a significant risk of a child developing a serious gender-related physical or mental disability, serious illness or other serious medical condition. It is not compulsory for parents with possible genetic illnesses to use PGD, and rightly they may not use it to select any positive characteristics. The Bill also permits the selection of embryos in order to provide compatible cord blood cells, bone marrow or other tissue to a sibling with a serious medical condition. Cells are taken from the umbilical cord of the saviour sibling, and, as a very last resort, bone marrow. It is clearly very controversial, but the creation of a saviour sibling already occurs, if only rarely: to date, the HFEA has licensed tissue typing for only six families. It is, and should remain, a last resort. In that context, cord blood is known to be an excellent source of useful stem cells. As other hon. Members have pointed out, 98.5 per cent. of cord blood is currently thrown away. Retaining more would not entirely obviate the need for the creation of saviour siblings, but it would increase the chances of a match being found for a seriously ill child. I urge the Government to consider ways of increasing the amount of cord blood that is banked.
	Let me turn my attention to the so-called "need for a father" clause. The important thing is the welfare of the child. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) needs to be careful. We will have a great deal of debate throughout the passage of the Bill, and he must not assume that those who disagree with him start from a basis of prejudice—we do not. The Bill requires fertility clinics to take into account the need for a father when providing treatment. It is widely accepted that the clause has not stopped same-sex couples and single women facing barriers in accessing treatment, nor would it in future were it to remain. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who, sadly, is not in her place, rightly pointed out that there is no evidence to contradict this.

Mark Simmonds: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman and I will have plenty of time to intervene on each other in the course of the Bill's passage.
	I strongly believe that children benefit from having role models of both sexes in their lives. Of course children can and do thrive being brought up in a loving, same-sex couple household or by a loving single parent—that is not in question. However, I would like clinics to have a duty to discuss with applicants for fertility services the differing perspectives that men and women can bring to life and the importance of both. The points made by some Members earlier about the social criteria that primary care trusts have for IVF treatment have no bearing on the Bill at all, although the inconsistency of those social criteria and their lack of transparency is creating real angst for many people. I know that the Minister is looking at that issue in great detail.
	I was pleased to see that artificial gametes are to be outlawed by the Bill; it would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that. I was surprised to hear that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) seemed to be in favour of artificial gametes. I recognise that they could lead to a therapy for those who, through illness or accident, can no longer produce sperm, but artificial gametes have inherent risks. Were that practice to be permitted, the stem cells of a man could theoretically be used to create female ovum. The stem cells of a woman could be used to create male sperm, enabling same sex couples to have children who are the genetic offspring of them both. One individual could have a child who is the genetic offspring of only themselves, which is not the same thing as cloning, but clearly is something that the House must prohibit. I am afraid that by prohibiting such research in the Bill, we will not stop it; it will just move elsewhere in the world.
	There are serious issues in the Bill that are not the subject of a free vote for Labour Members, and I think that they should be—for example, the issue of complex mitochondrial diseases. The Bill includes the possibility of eradicating a number of serious genetic conditions that are inherited through mitochondria. By opening the door to mitochondrial replacement, the Bill could allow the nucleus of a mother's egg to be transferred into an egg with healthy mitochondria and then fertilised. That will allow women who know that they are carrying serious genetic conditions in their mitochondria to have children without the risk of passing on those conditions to their offspring. That highly innovative area requires careful research and consideration. It could provide significant medical enhancement, but it does throw up difficult ethical and moral issues.
	The issue of birth certificates was mentioned earlier. It is a highly complicated area and the Bill would allow for same sex couples to be named on birth certificates, bringing legislation in line with heterosexual couples who have used donor sperm. As I understand it, that issue is covered by schedule 2, and if it is not debated during the three-hour period next Tuesday, we will not be allowed to debate it during the remaining Committee proceedings. Parliament has to decide and consider whether we believe that birth certificates should primarily be a record of one's social origins or one's biological origins, or indeed, whether a further compromise can be found.
	Another controversial issue on which the Government are not allowing Labour Members a free vote is the storage of child embryos or gametes in existing cell lines. Two areas must be looked at, in the context that consent is the cornerstone of the Bill, which avoids the need to decide on the issue of property and create explicit property rights. First, we are concerned that in cases where a child suffers from a serious genetic illness that will prevent them from reaching adulthood, parents are unable to consent on behalf of the child to the storage of their eggs, gametes or cells to use for research into the child's condition. If a child cannot live to the age of 18, it will be impossible to do research to enable other children who suffer from such diseases to survive beyond that period.
	Secondly, some valuable work has been done creating stem cell lines, which could be lost if the Government do not amend the legislation to allow cells donated in the past to be used for embryonic stem cell research without additional consent from the donor. In some cases, the cells have been anonymous to such a degree that it would be impossible to contact the donor, and in other cases it may be impossible to locate the donor. The Minister in the other place agreed to consider those issues and return to the House and we await the Government's decision with interest.
	Complex issues surround the surrogacy laws. In England, surrogacy agreements have no legal force, so parents who wish to use surrogate mothers have to adopt or apply for a parental order, which involves a great deal of state intervention. Parents can be refused adoption orders even though the child is their genetic offspring. Children who are born to surrogate mothers abroad also face challenges. In some countries, as in the UK, a child will be regarded as the offspring of the surrogate mother but, in others—for example, the United States—the child will be considered that of the commissioning parents, potentially leaving a child stateless and parentless.
	As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, other significant issues surround the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells. I am sure that we will revert to that in Committee.
	There are no provisions in the Bill to allow the creation of embryos or derivation of embryonic stem cells to treat conditions other than those associated with reproduction. Clearly, that needs to be examined.
	The measure is important and complex, and it stirs intense and passionate convictions, as we have heard today. The significant pre-legislative scrutiny and the debate in the other place has honed many arguments and already altered its architecture for the better.
	The debate is ultimately about where hon. Members decide to position the fulcrum, taking into account the importance of scientific innovation and the ethical framework within which we wish to operate, while—most important—protecting the special status of the embryo.

Peter Viggers: I beg to present a petition that has been signed by 16,132 constituents and others. It relates to the Royal hospital, Haslar, which has been highly regarded as the only military hospital in the UK and which continues to provide excellent medical services for civilians and service personnel despite an announcement in 1998 that it was to be closed. I maintain that through this campaign Haslar has become the best known hospital in the UK. The petition demands that the hospital should be allowed to continue as a vital local asset.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of Mr Alan Scard and others,
	Sheweth,
	That Gosport Borough Council, Fareham Borough Council and the Haslar Task Force have proposals for the future use of the Haslar site and have urged that ways be found to utilise the site for the provision of healthcare services and treatment in Gosport, Fareham and the surrounding areas.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and all other relevant bodies to promote this particular proposal.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000189]

Jessica Morden: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the impact of the work force change programme on my constituents, especially those who work in the Newport office of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. In light of significant new developments, I shall be asking my right hon. Friend to look again at plans to relocate staff from the Newport office. Many thanks to my right hon. Friend for responding to the debate, because I know that she is extremely busy at present; I thank her, too, for affording me opportunities recently to talk about the issue.
	Over the past 18 months I have worked closely with groups of dedicated staff from a number of Government agencies, including HMRC in Newport and the Valuation Office Agency, who have been faced with a series of overlapping reviews in the name of gaining greater efficiency. Although I and undoubtedly all taxpayers applaud the drive to ensure value for money in Government services, those reviews have been marked by lack of co-ordination, shifting goalposts and contradictory outcomes, leading me to consider that such actions are largely counter-productive in my constituency.
	I pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the staff in Newport who have worked as civil servants for many years. I pay tribute, too, to the Public and Commercial Services Union in Wales, which has campaigned alongside staff to highlight their concerns. The fear is that dedicated employees who have a track record of success may be forced to leave the service. In the short term, staff face an uncertain future and in the longer term, the objectives of the Welsh Assembly Government to move jobs out of Cardiff to benefit the whole of Wales have been trampled underfoot.
	In Newport, we find ourselves in a particularly incongruous position. Some HMRC staff in Newport are being moved to a location on the outskirts of Cardiff, outside reasonable daily travel by public transport. At the same time, the VOA, which has also just concluded a review of its office locations, will move into part of the offices that the HMRC has vacated, use of which was deemed inefficient by the HMRC. During the debate, I want to examine how much more efficient the review and its outcomes could be if a more co-ordinated approach were considered. I ask the Minister to look again at the situation in Newport.
	The overall objective of seeking out inefficiencies and improving services may be necessary but many more problems have been created by the unco-ordinated review on top of review approach. Back in 2004, Gershon focused on the objective of releasing to front-line services major resources from activities that could be done more efficiently, but he was at pains to stipulate that the savings should not be achieved at the expense of service delivery. Gershon repeatedly emphasised the need for joined-up approaches as the key to securing an efficient future for service delivery.
	In HMRC in Newport, a local departmental review was launched just weeks before the HMRC-wide work force change programme began the department's review of the Cardiff urban centre. That confused staff and demonstrated a lack of joined-up thinking and planning from the start. There are a number of concerns about the fact that Newport was even included in the Cardiff urban centre. HMRC initially asserted that it was within the 25 km boundary of the Llanishen site. However, later documentation puts the Newport office at 28 km from the Ty Glas office in Llanishen. I fully appreciate that is a difference of only 3 km but the boundary has to be drawn somewhere and if Newport was outside the boundary it should have been included in the cluster group of offices now being considered, not in the Cardiff urban centre review.
	The outcome of the review was issued by the work force change team in February and the conclusion was that Newport HMRC should
	"withdraw from Crown Building and relocate staff in...Cardiff by spring 2010".
	The move will result in difficult if not impossible public transport options and thus increased reliance on cars, which will have an impact both on traffic in an already congested commute and also on the environment. Staff will face large parking problems as the Cardiff office is in a residential area that is notoriously congested. I understand that management has no responsibility for providing parking, and those with young families and caring responsibilities will face particular difficulties in getting there.
	The initial review revealed that more than 90 per cent. of staff from Newport faced travelling for more than an hour to work. That calls into question the decision to opt for relocation. Following the review, Paul Grey stated, in a reply to a staff hot-seat question, that HMRC expected that most people would find it easier to travel to a central office, and that the majority of staff would travel by public transport. In this case, that is clearly not true.
	Given a set of criteria, the staff in Newport were able to demonstrate successfully and in great detail why moving the whole Newport team was not an effective or efficient option, in view of travel issues and the impact on staff, service and the environment. I have learned that a significant proportion of the staff have successfully made individual cases for why they should not be moved, citing unreasonable travel requirements, or caring or other responsibilities. I would like to thank HMRC for looking in detail at each of those cases and for taking seriously the concerns of employees. The members of staff concerned are understandably grateful for that reprieve, despite concerns about how the split of the team will work in practice, and how it will effect their future employment. However, that does not negate the bigger question that I am posing today about the nature of the reviews and the failure of the Department to take a more holistic approach to seeking efficiency; in fact, in many ways, it reinforces my point.
	If more than 50 of the 124 members of staff will now not be transferred to Llanishen, additional arrangements will be made for them. That calls into question the whole premise of the review and reveals the failure of HMRC to undertake the promised full equality impact assessment, which could have revealed in the early stages of the process that 41 per cent. of staff have disabilities, that 31 per cent. are part-time, that 66 per cent. are women, and that a high number of staff would be unable to transfer.
	HMRC has announced the closure of the Newport office by 2010, with some staff expected to transfer to Cardiff. The HMRC presence planned for Newport is an inquiry centre with three members of staff. Experienced staff who are now to be retained in Newport will also have new working arrangements. At the same time, the Department for Work and Pensions announced plans to relocate Cardiff members of staff to Newport, so civil servants will literally cross each other on the M4 to travel to new places of work as a result of relocation decisions. In addition, as I have already mentioned, the Valuation Office Agency announced, following its review, that it sees Newport as one of its strategic locations and will move into the office currently populated by HMRC staff. The valuation office will also recruit 50 new members of staff.
	I very much welcome the decision by the valuation office and the additional jobs, but it is hard to see how the Treasury is saving any money whatever by relocating staff from Newport to Llanishen, given that the valuation office will occupy the office space, and that a proportion of HMRC staff will have to be located there. According to the work force change programme, there would be a £470,000 saving if the building were vacated. The valuation office will take up one floor, so the savings will be smaller than anticipated if the building is not fully vacated by HMRC.
	In addition, there are costs associated with prolonged journeys. Many staff who will relocate will be eligible to claim money for the additional travelling. Many members of staff report to me that the travel allowance will have a knock-on effect on their tax credits, and those are the people who report that they are affected by the abolition of the 10p tax band.

Jessica Morden: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. She has campaigned vigorously on the issue, and has been a feisty advocate for her constituents. I will come on to the point about the Welsh Assembly shortly.
	I struggle to see how the changes will bring about the desired savings and efficiencies, but they will have a negative impact on staff and, importantly, on front-line services. I also want to focus on the impact that the proposals are having on Newport as a city. Newport is a regenerating and developing city. The council, Newport Unlimited—our regeneration company—politicians and business leaders are working hard to make Newport a prime location for investment and for doing business. The ongoing success of Newport's regeneration has resulted in its being ranked 7th in the UK tables showing the predicted economic strength of cities.
	Success in attracting new employers, investment and jobs is shaken each time a high-profile decision is taken by a Government agency to buck the trend and take not only jobs, but front-line services such as the employers' section, out of Newport. In addition, the National Assembly for Wales has a clear policy that public sector jobs and the benefits that they bring to an area should be spread out of Cardiff to other parts of Wales. Will the Minister comment on the steps that were taken to work with the Assembly during the making of those significant decisions?
	Over the past 18 months there has been a lack of co-ordination between Departments and agencies involved in conducting the reviews and making decisions, and a reluctance to consider alternative or more holistic solutions. During the consultation period I was pleased to work with a number of partners including Newport council to explore alternative solutions, such as the co-location of services. However, these independently run reviews, with specific parameters, are too inflexible to consider cross-boundary solutions, ignoring the joined-up approach whose aim was identified as the key to success.
	In the light of the situation that I have outlined, will the Minister review as a matter of urgency the decision to relocate HMRC Newport? In particular, what thought was given to the wider consequences, such as the impact on Newport or the wider aims of the National Assembly for Wales? Given the outcome of the interviews with employees, would it not be wise to reconsider the whole decision? In a recent hot-seat question from staff to management, staff were told that the decision to vacate an HMRC office would be reconsidered if significant new information came to light. In view of the fact that, as I understand it, more than 56 out of 124 staff are now to remain in Newport, would it not make sense to rethink the move to Cardiff and allow all staff to continue their careers and public service in their present location?
	I understand that the Newport office has just been given a major national project looking at 400,000 historical employer cases. Given the expertise and experience of staff there, would it not make sense to give them also the national employer work which, I understand, is looking for a home, and to make Newport truly a centre of excellence?
	Finally, I urge the Minister in future to ensure that the Department and its agencies consider a more practical and holistic approach so that agencies and Departments work together to create joined-up solutions that will make real efficiency gains, improve services and, crucially, value the staff.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend's point relates to keeping public sector jobs in certain locations for economic reasons. My constituency on Merseyside has benefited from objective 1 status, so I understand the arguments for that. However, as I shall explain, HMRC has a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that it achieves the best possible arrangement of its resources. HMRC is subject to enormous pressures to change how its staff work. The benefits gained by people working together in larger offices, so that they can be more flexible about the priority of work and the areas of work that they cover, are essential to the efficiency of HMRC in responding to public demand.
	As I will explain, those pressures mean that HMRC is required to look at issues across the particular business—whether in respect of VAT, income tax or corporation tax. All those different sectors have been looking carefully at how best to use their resources—in this case, particularly human resources—to deliver an ever-improving service to the public.
	There must be an emphasis on improving compliance by focusing resources on the risk with which the organisation is dealing in respect of different taxes and customer groups. I have used the example of missing trader intra-community fraud, which we call more prosaically "carousel fraud". That resulted in a threat to the Revenue of some billions of pounds; there was a sudden escalation in that particular type of fraud and HMRC had to respond quickly. That brought about pressures in parts of the organisation. HMRC representatives tell me that to be able to respond rapidly and efficiently to such pressure, it is better that staff work together in larger groups, rather than according to the approach recommended by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East and for Llanelli.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East will accept that HMRC values the face-to-face contact that the public appreciate, and it is determined to maintain that. I reassure her that, in respect of the decisions for Newport, the HMRC inquiry centre services will be maintained in their current location or nearby. Staff in Newport will not be required to commute to an office beyond reasonable daily travel, and there is an established process for managers and staff, which she has described. I am grateful for her welcome for the way in which HMRC has managed and responded to staff representations. The process is open, transparent and accessible to the trade unions.
	The systematic process of review designed by HMRC involves consultations and announcements on decisions, and is being implemented across the whole UK. As we heard from my hon. Friend, in February the decisions on Newport were announced to all staff and trade unions, and all Members with a constituency interest were notified at the same time.
	Newport was reviewed as part of the larger Cardiff urban centre. The proposals to rationalise work and office space across this urban centre were put forward for consultation in June last year. It is not true to say that a blanket policy of moving jobs from more rural and less highly populated areas into urban centres is being applied. The process is very much influenced by experience of what HMRC sees on the ground, and decisions have been adjusted according to the representations that it received.
	Let me briefly outline some of the factors that have been considered in reaching the decision to vacate Newport. Cardiff urban centre has four offices accommodating some 3,100 staff. HMRC expects its staff requirement to reduce to around 2,800 by 2011. The decision to consolidate work on one site within this urban centre—Ty Glas in Cardiff—was based on HMRC's strategic requirements, the excess of accommodation, and the continuing drive to improve customer services across all its business areas. Although my hon. Friend may not agree with HMRC's decision to vacate Newport, the Department has an obligation to spend what is ultimately taxpayers' money to good effect. The decision factored in the latest travel and diversity data available, and managers within HMRC are in the process of discussing with individuals their own personal circumstances.
	I well understand the concerns of some people about any extra travel time that they may face and their dependency on the availability of transport links from their homes. My hon. Friend is right that the analysis undertaken by HMRC to support its recommendations was extensive. It recognises that although an analysis of travel times for staff suggests that 88 per cent. of staff in the Newport office are within reasonable daily travel of Ty Glas by car, a majority of staff may not be able to make the journey by public transport. In order to move to the more efficient structure that HMRC needs, it will relocate all staff who can reasonably make the journey to Ty Glas.
	For those who cannot move, the department is looking at how best to accommodate them while continuing to provide them with suitable work and offering a variety of support—for example, assisted home moves for pre-surplus staff to fill specialised posts elsewhere in the department, a public sector release scheme which offers grants to staff leaving to train for front-line public sector jobs, and perhaps moves to suitable jobs available in other Government Departments. I welcome the fact that the Valuation Office Agency has been able to work together with other departments to ensure that the best use is made of the Government estate in Newport. There may even be opportunities for staff to transfer between the two departments. My hon. Friend cited the example of jobcentre staff moving one way up the motorway as HMRC staff move in the opposite direction. In fact, this will create opportunities for staff to transfer between the departments, and I hope that that will prove helpful.
	Throughout the programme, senior management in Revenue and Customs have been committed to being open with staff, explaining the options available to individuals and exploring how their expectations can be matched with the need to make its operations more efficient and effective. As I have indicated, HMRC is keen to retain the skills and experience of staff in the Cardiff urban centre and to match these with its aims of achieving improved customer service and more efficient operations. I can reassure both my hon. Friends that meetings have been arranged between HMRC and Welsh Assembly Government officials at the end of this month to discuss the consultation process in advance of its next stage. Officials have been made aware of the policy of the Welsh Assembly in this regard. I expect the review of the remainder of HMRC locations in Wales—cluster and individual locations—to begin in June. HMRC will engage with the Welsh Assembly and with other Government Departments, where appropriate, during the course of consultation.
	I welcome this debate as part of our commitment to the process of consultation and openness in moving forwards. It is a long-term programme that will deliver a more responsive and efficient service for taxpayers and claimants.
	Although I cannot respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East in the way that she would wish, by committing to review the decision, I acknowledge the continuing concerns that she expressed. I believe that the process of change will be broadly for the long-term benefit of her constituents in Newport. I acknowledge that such public sector jobs are of particular value in a place like Newport, but none the less, the changes that HMRC is making will be for the long-term benefit of the customers that it serves. It would not be right if taxpayers' money were used to support public sector jobs in a way that would be unjustifiable if it were closely scrutinised with regard to efficiency. Notwithstanding the disappointment that my hon. Friend will feel on the decision on Newport, I hope that she will support the organisation in the future and encourage staff to be committed to the overall change, which will be for the benefit of the customers whom they serve.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.